From maintainers-request at octave dot org Thu Dec  9 02:28:22 2004
Subject: Re: octave warnings
From: Daniel J Sebald <daniel dot sebald at ieee dot org>
To: "Dmitri A. Sergatskov" <dmitri at unm dot edu>
Cc: octave maintainers mailing list <maintainers at octave dot org>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 02:29:11 -0600

Dmitri A. Sergatskov wrote:

> Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>
>> I'm having a problem with Octave 2.1.57 and 2.1.64.  The former is 
>> the binary in Fedora Core 3.  The latter is what I compiled.  The 
>> behavior is the same.  It could be a problem with the compiler that 
>> is on the 
>
>
> Fedora Core 3 has gcc that miscompiles lapack with high optimization.


Whew.  OK.  Thanks.  But I'm not completely following.  There are many 
descriptions of flags in the bugzilla reports.

> You can grab lapack from the rawhide.


What is rawhide?  http://www.netlib.org/lapack/lapack.tgz,  Is that 
rawhide?  :-)



> If you compile octave
> w/o external lapack (and using the included one) you
> have to set FFLAGS to -O1 or to -ffloat-store.
> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=138791
> for details.


In bugzilla I see:

Linked with lapack rebuilt with
FFLAGS="-ffloat-store" it executes as expected.


My workaround was to recompile both lapack and octave with

FFLAGS="-O2 -ffloat-store".


Recompiling both lapack and octave with FFLAGS="-O
-ffloat-storage" seems to solve this problem. 


And then I searched back through octave emails and see Quentins comment 
about just getting the Fedora SRPM file and recompiling without one 
having to change anything.  Is that the latest and simplest solution?  
I'm downloading that now and see that it is dated Nov 30th, two weeks 
more recent than Quentin's posting.

Dan